[B-Greek] Once For All Time - Luke 18:9-14

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Jul 10 08:43:05 EDT 2009


On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:

> Hello Folks,
>
> Carl Conrad wrote:
>
>> (1) hILASQHTI. It's true that more recent aspect theory (and I think
>>
>> this applies to all flavors, whether "vanilla" or "plain brown
>> wrapper"or Porter or Fanning or Campbell) looks with disfavor on the
>>
>> notion that the aorist indicates a "once for all time" act. In fact,
>>
>> however, we need only consider such standard aorist imperatives as
>>
>> EIPE MOI or ASPASASQE AUTHN to discern actions that are to be
>> accomplished in a particular instance.
>
> RG: Fine. I agree.
>
> CC: > (2) DEDIKAIWMENOS. I've expressed my opinion previously that the
>> Koine
>> aorist and perfect tenses are in process of assimilation; I'm not
>> convinced that DEDIKAIWMENOS carries a meaning differing
>> substantially
>> from that of DIKAIWQEIS. Perhaps Richard's friend thinks similarly,
>>
>> since he speaks of the perfect participle implying "a once for all
>>
>> time justification." But we can readily find instances of the
>> perfect
>> wherein completion is clearly implicit but there's no indication of
>>
>> the permanence of the action completed: Mk 3:1 tells of
>> an?????p?? ????aµµ???? ???? t??
>> ?e??a [EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA]. EXHRAMMENHN indicates the
>>
>> state of the man's hand, but subsequent verses tell of the
>> restoration
>> of the man's hand (3:5 ???e? t? ?????p?·
>> ??te???? t?? ?e??a. ?a? ???te??e?
>>
>> ?a? ?pe?atest??? ? ?e?? a?t??. LEGEI
>>
>> TWi ANQRWPWi: EKTEINON THN CEIRA. KAI EXETEINEN KAI APEKATESTAQH hH
>>
>> CEIR AUTOU]. (We may note in this verse also that the command to
>> hold
>> out the hand hardly implies that the hand should be held out
>> forever.
>
> RG: Agreed. (But I implicitly agreed with all of the above in my  
> original
> post. cf. below)
>
> Evidently I stated my question so unclearly that the only answers I  
> got
> were non-responsive. So let me try it this way.
> 1) Repeat my question.
> 2) Elaborate a bit.
> 3) Rephrase my question.
>
> 1) Repeat my question.
> If the author's claims about the aorist and
> perfect cannot be substantiated, what CAN we claim about these two
> verbal forms that will help us understand what Jesus is teaching in  
> this
> parable?
>
> 2) Elaborate.
> My author (he/she shall remain nameless) made explicit certain  
> meanings
> of the aorist of hILASKOMAI and the perfect of DIKAIW that he/she
> BELIEVES are implicit in the Gospel writer's use of those tenses for
> these verbs in this context. We are now all (or mostly) ageed that the
> implications he/she drew from the use of those specific tenses are  
> wrong
> (probably) based on a newer and presumably better theory of verbal
> aspect. So I should think it would be possible to draw new and  
> different
> implications from Luke's use of aor. hILASTQHTI and perf.  
> DEDIKAIWMENOS
> so as to form a partly new basis for exegesis. My author used English
> paraphrase to draw out the implicit meaning of the aorist and  
> perfect. It
> should be possible to do the same under the newer verbal aspect  
> theory.
>
> 3) Rephrasing the Question.
> What are the NEW and DIFFERENT implications of Luke's use of aorist  
> and
> perfect tenses for the verbs in question in this text? How do they  
> alter
> the exegesis? Can they be put into English paraphrase just as my  
> author
> has done?
>
> I trust I have stated my questions more clearly now.

Well, yes, after a fashion. It's almost as if you've said, "I'm going  
to tell you a shaggy dog story, as follows ... " -- and then, after  
you've finally finished telling it, you say, "But my question doesn't  
co;ncern the shaggy dog story, really. What I want to know is, if you  
ignore the shaggy dog story, what do you by calling it a shaggy dog  
story?" Almost, but, of course, not really.

You say, "We are now (or mostly) agreed that the implications he/she  
drew from the use of those specific tenses are wrong (probably) based  
on a newer and presumably better theory of verbal aspect." That is to  
say, you hem and haw and hint in such a way as to challenge the rest  
of us to demonstrate that the tense-aspect usage here does NOT mean  
what your exemplary commentator claims, as if to suggest, maybe that's  
the way it ought to be understood after all. I'm not sure that a  
challenge of that sort can be answered to your satisfaction.

I don't think that there' are especially NEW and DIFFERENT  
implications of the tense-aspect usage of the verbs in question that  
weren't there all along. It is not as if our understanding of this  
parable hinges upon the tense-aspect of these two verbs. We're dealing  
with a parable portraying contrasting attitudes or spiritual  
commitments of "Pharisee" and "Publican," figures which are almost  
caricatures in Luke's gospel for the self-righteous practitioner of  
ostentatious piety and for one who displays authentic self-abasing  
penitence. The parable exaggerates and caricatures the two stances/ 
attitudes and comments on them. The tax-collector asks for God's mercy  
because he is repentant; Jesus pronounces a judgment upon the tax- 
collector' and his prayer: it is the prayer of a man whose worship is  
not tainted by hypocrisy and self-exaltation who asks for God's mercy  
in this moment (hILASQHTI): he is a man of demonstrated righteousness  
or a man who has demonstrated his righteousness (DEDIKAIWMENOS). We  
are commended to be like the tax-collector and not like the Pharisee.  
I don't think that an appreciation of Paul's exposition of Romans 3 is  
required for the proper understanding of this parable.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list